Why do neo-cons laud the Constitution for guns yet spit on it for the right to privacy?

Question

Should their slogan be "Big government is your friend..."

Celebrat (below) Wrong answer. Bush has amassed the biggest government and biggest deficit the US has ever seen. Bush is a neo-con.

artic (below) {smile} Guns are a tool and should be used. This does not address the wish of some to open their lives to

- illegal search and seizer -
(for those below wondering "Duh, I no see no right to privacy, a-duh)

Not you artic...

Answer 1

I have nothing against a person having a right to privacy. But I also believe that we should be able to supply our intelligence services with information to pursue terrorists, and if that means giving up a bit of privacy in times of war, then so be it.

Why do liberals laud the Constitution about rights to privacy, but have this never-ending desire to confiscate our privately owned weapons, and deny our rights?

Answer 2

You know, when the Social Security deal was purposed, people protested in the streets. They said that a national ID number was just a way for "Big Brother" to watch over us, control us.

In the Federal Law establishing the SSA, it says no one can ever ask to see your SS card, or use it as a form of ID. How many people know THAT??

It's STILL illegal to require (key word is "require", we almost always voluntarily give it, as if we have a choice) it on most forms, and in most situations. Yet everyone asks for it for everything. The $8 an hour Office Depot kid asked me for it to verify I owned a credit card I gave him the other day (that I hadn't used in along time).

We lost that battle (long before anyone here tonight was born, almost certainly), and yet now people think this new Read ID Act is something new, somehow we'll lose something more.

Right. We're numbered, we're ID'd to death.

We have no privacy. And what illusion of privacy we have only helps those who commit crimes, it doesn't help us.

And, btw, the Fourth Amendment couldn't envision telephones or the Internet, both of which send signals beyond and out of our personal realm of control. It's a farce that we have EVER thought the Fourth Amendment should apply to items and messages which leave our homes and person, as that is all the 4Th protects. Home and person.

Answer 3

Sorry but you're barking up the wrong tree. Big business is spying on you a hell of a lot more than big government is. Need proof? Do a spyware scan on your comp sometime. Most of what it finds is spyware and adware all owned by private companies usually Advertising firms. Yep Big Business is hacking your computer.

All that OnStar and GPS **** you see everyone tripping over each other for, Yep Big Business is watching you. They know where youare and what's more you volunteered for it. Yep you forked over your own cash. All as a status symbol.

The Evil Empire's headquarters is Madison Ave. New York not Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC. **** the stuff big business does to spy on people would make 007 look like a kid with a magnifying glass.

Answer 4

C J -- I see we are at odd ends together once again. Guns should be put aside for war and there should be no war. The war you have now in Iraq IS based on lies. Even so the only people, in the US, that needed guns in the US is the forces.

DennisIsEvil -- Well said.

Bret -- do you think that this may be true because of the protests?

joey120746 -- I got a much different idea of you because of your avatar. I am relieved that more people understand the
relevance of years. I only wish I could portray to my kids the importance of the 60's. I know that it is barely touched upon at schools. We need a lot more teaching about the close past rather than King Henry VIII.

Answer 5

There is no right to privacy in the constitution. If you can find it in the printing of the document I will give you 1 million dollars. But the ninth ammendment (part if that bill of rights thing) says that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And this has been constured by certain judges throughout our history like Goldberg in the Griswold Concurrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut) And no I dont mean the Griswolds who were trapped on that European vacation.

Today privacy laws are being re-evaluated probably more than at anytime in our history because of the loss of the wall between public and private and the free use and ease of use of so called private information. For example to you have a right to privacy if you send an email? Yes unless it involves child porn or other illicit activities than they can be used against you. And before you say it they dont need a warrant. For example if they are turned over by someone at your job (if your stupid enough to use their pc to do your naughty business I suppose) who intercepted them using a filter or if the person you were sending them to calls the police (they are not servants of the court and thus not as rigidly controlled as police of attorneys) they will show up at your trial whether they were private or not.

So that takes care of the meat of your question/visceral bile spewing name calling liberal fighting words. Privacy is not in the constitution it is a moldable thing that has been altered through judicial review and changes in times and understanding. And the right to bear arms is in the constitution VERBATIM. Conservative tends to mean that a person likes the way things were or are sees no need for change black and white no grey is or isnt not could be Get it? So when something is (Right to bear arms) it is. And when something isnt (Privacy in the constitution) it isnt. They are just different constitutional schools. Modernisers vs. Traditionalists.

Now to tackle the obscene use of a term that you obviously do not comprehend the meaning of. Neo-con.
Since I want to be as comprehensive and fair as possible I will go slowly and use small words. Let me first start with a a definition for you and then try some examples of a "neo-con."
Do you know who Russell Kirk is? ( I am sorry I am supposed to be answering not asking questions) Russell Kirk is the founder of neo-conservatism. Published a book called the conservative mind. He was the first to adapt traditional democratic teachings into a type of federalism that altered from that of the founders.It was he who believed that the "rights" of the individual were grounded in the historical circumstances of the US and not that they universal (What would he think about illegal aliens suing cops in the US for violating their constitutional rights?) But I digress. He had six cannons or rules (I admit I didnt remember them all so I stole them from wikipedia)
[edit] Principles
Kirk developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:


A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;

A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

If you go by this list you will quickly realize that the individuals that you and yours (liberal whack job moon bats) label as neocons are not. If anything they are Rinos (Republican in Name Only). True neocons would defend liberty and may even align themselves with the ideas of personal privacy since it came about from the "historical circumstances" of this country. But what do I know right? Plain and simple Neocons is a misnomer and is being misused due to political talking points by dolts like you all over this country hopefully you will research a little bit before you spout of the next thing Obamahillosi sends you in your email.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Answer 6

The power in control always wants the ability to spy on those of the other party. During the Clinton administration they tried, illegally, to demand the NRA surrender their membership list to the anti-firearm crowd, but they refused even though threatened with arrest by Janet Reno's FBI/ATF. And Clinton sent the security clearance files of republicans to DNC headquarters for perusal, a.k.a. "filegate", although it was afterwards blamed on some mall security type character who has never been heard of since. If you are making international phone calls with terrorist suspects, yeah, they might be listening. I hope so. Big government is no one's friend, ever.

Answer 7

because it has to fit their propensity toward selfishness. If the law fits their narrow minded dogma that they have manufactured, then they are for it. If it doesn't, then they would just as soon have it ripped out of the Constitution and set afire.
You're right, neo-cons love big government. Even some of the conservatives like William F. Buckley and George Will have said the same and come out against their policies.

Name me one liberal who wants to confiscate your guns. I know many liberal gun owners who hunt. However, cons would have you believe there is no right to privacy and the government can come in and spy on you or wire tap or tell you that you have no right to privacy between your health care provider and yourself. They obviously don't get the connection between this and their government that is on the back of the people that they always complain about and that it just might go deeper than their pockets and wallets.

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

Answer 8

There is no right to provacy in the US Constitution. Read and re-read it, you'll never find it.

What there is is protections against Unlawful Search and Seizure, unless there is probable cause. See the 4th Amendment.

Thus it is hard to spit on soemthing that doesn't exist.

Answer 9

Yet liberals try to come up with a convoluted definition of the Second Amendment. By the way, the constitution does not list privacy as a right. Try reading it for once.

Answer 10

It is interpreted by what is convenient for what they want. Conservative is supposed to be more literal and liberal more spirit of the law but it seems the conservatives use spirit when it is convenient to them and exact when it fits their needs. Of course liberals do it too but since it is spirit of the law they favor anyway they don't have to fudge that much.